Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

Ian Lynagh igloo at
Mon Aug 24 19:18:26 EDT 2009

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 08:31:17PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>         Passing all requirements would be the
>         criteria for inclusion.

I would say "Passing all requirements would be sufficient for
inclusion", but we may decide to include packages that don't meet all
the requirements.

>       * That the policy document itself is too long and too detailed.
>         That it anticipates eventualities that may or may not arise in
>         practise.
>         That the overall length is a problem because it is off-putting,
>         with the danger that people simply will not read it.

Right. I was admittedly reading it at ~2am, but IIRC the way I read it

* Hmm, the widget on the scrollbar is very small. Reading this is going
  to take a while.
* Drag widget down a bit. See "[note-6.3]". Hmm, jumping up and down
  between the text and all the notes is really going to break the flow
  if I try and read it properly.
* Drag widget down more. See sections like "Acceptance", "Proposal
  content" and "Package requirements", not realising I was looking at
* Drag widget down more, and see the "Achieving consensus" major
  section. Boggle at the size as compared to the library submissions
* Read a little text, probably from the early "Procedure" section.

By contrast, I would probably have read this:

If you do want to keep the rationale in the same document then making it
expandable inline with JavaScript may be better. (It would still work in
non-JS browsers, but be very verbose in them).

> Ian, is this a fair summary? Is there anything I've missed that I didn't
> address specifically in the previous email?

Yes, I think it's a fair summary and covers everything.


More information about the Libraries mailing list